IJ article stated- “With open enrollment for millions of uninsured Americans less than 10 months away — Oct. 1, 2013 — the four GOP-led states are part of a larger group totaling 17 states plus Washington, D.C., that have gotten an initial go-ahead to build and run insurance exchanges.”

A couple of comments- 1.) There is no way this will happen in ten months. 2.) I would not say that four GOP led states and 17 states in total is a clear sign of bipartinship. Looks to me like most of the states, including democartic states are saying no thanks.

Your so correct. The only agreement here (dems or pubs) is what IJ can write. Unfortunately for IJ, its easy to see through the smoke and mirrors when its in writing compared to reading from a teleprompter.

“They (exchanges) were originally a Republican idea that won bipartisan support, only to be abandoned by many in the GOP once Obama incorporated the concept in his health care law.”

I guess you guys missed that comment.

There’s no way this will happen in 10 months? Really? For those (red of course) states that have chosen not to participate, the fed will step in and set them up. Sounds like it’s on schedule. Is your comment based on some factual information we don’t know about is it just the usual “do nothing and the problem will go away” right-wing naysaying?

Given the level of partisanship on this issue from those states that have chosen not to set up exchanges to score political points, any red state chosing to participate is an example of bi-partisanship.

The article does not say that only 17 states are going to implement the exchanges, but rather, only 17 states have received approval for their implementation proposals. Do you understand the difference? Other states are still either working on submitting their proposals, or their proposals are under review.

Any state that chooses not to implement a health care system should cause THEIR representatives in congress to lose their coverage. If it’s not good enough for the common folks to have access to insurance then the “elected elite” should not have easy access paid for by us taxpayers. They should be subjected to the same conditions as their citizens.

You are right about one thing Nan. The politicians made sure they were not going to have Obamacare. They will stay on their blue chip elite government plans which are in the private market and not subject to what they imposed on the citizens.

No particular plan has been “imposed” on anyone. Any citizen who chooses to continue with private blue chip elite insurance plans also can continue with such plans, even if those citizens are not politicians. You seem confused about how this is going to work.

Just like the biggest lie on politifact about republicans doing away with medicare?

Also, the lie I’m referring to was THE lie of the year.

Now moving forward: The government regulating the industry into being less efficient is a take over. It’s not a lie at all when republicans frame it that way, and point out the negative effects it will have.

And boy howdy, will it have negative effects. We have already seen (as I showed you before and like a fool you had no answer) that CBO rated the republican and democrat plan and the republican plan would have decreased premiums by 9% from the norm, whereas the democrat increases it by 9% from the norm (a deviation of 18%). Your dumbass argument at the time was “yes, but the democrat plan gets more people insured!”

No. If forces people to buy insurance, at a 18% cost.

And if more people in the pool should bring down costs, that 18% cost shouldn’t exist right?

Having more people forced to buy insurance is not in itself a positive for those people who are forced to buy insurance. They clearly don’t have it now. Having more people buy insurance and costs going up by 18% is clearly not a benefit for already insureds, (you try to claim having more insured will increase the pool and bring down costs, a concept which goes against the CBO rated numbers)

Wake up Planet. This plan is inefficient. It is a government take over. And it’s goal is to crush the insurance system in order to establish single payor.

Single payor is good for normal people. I’ll admit that much.

It is terrible for catastrophic incidences, and you as an insurance agent should know what the hell that means without me explaining it to you. The government can and never will pay out more for high cost procedures than insurance companies.

Evidence to this fact is the amount we spend on healthcare.

You claim on the left “that doesn’t mean it’s better care” (pure bullshit claim that no one can back up, especially considering in most cancers we have better outcomes) but the fact remains we actually PAY much more directly for treatment.

I’ve direct a lot of issues here so you have no damn wiggle room.

You do well at diverting the topic by going on some stupid one liner ineptly thought out comment.

Agent is angry. Not confused. And he has his facts straight about 2 to 1 marginally in comparison to you.

You have been wrong on this site. So have many other people.

You however have several times (with a high and mighty pea cocked head) attempted the attack, and the blatantly stupid argument that because people on the right are sometimes mad and wrong, that they are always mad and wrong. So then…Ya never been mad or wrong Planet?

You’ll claim I don’t for talking to you like I just did. I call bullshit up front. The comments you’ve made about republicans without the proper research while labeling them as bumbling angry white religious zealots is insane.

Insurance102, you can opt out of the others. The difference between healthcare and auto insurance, is you don’t have to drive a car. In regards to workcomp, you don’t have to own a business. However, for healthcare, the only option to opt out is death. That sure doesn’t appeal to me.

It is different because with auto insurance you are protecting innocent third parties from negligents acts of the driver. It is third party protection. With workers compensation you are protecting employees from work related accidents and to relieve the potentially long litigations by employees adainst employers.

With healthcare it is first party and why should the government mandate what you do with your own money or mandate what you must buy? A person should have the free will to do whatever they want to do about healthcare or not want do to. For those who need “temporary assistance” there should be medicaid. The problem with the democrats is that they believe that second, third and fourth generation welfare and medicaid recipients, illegal aliens and other assorted deadbeats are ok and I guess temporary. They also believe everyone else should be happy to pay for it. That in addition the working people get “baseline coverage” which will be crap while the medicaid recipient can walk in and out of the hospital with all of the cost covered. That does not seem fair to me.

Sargent,
You do realize that this is 3rd party protection, unless you are happy paying for those without coverage. Do you think that those without covergae just sit back, suffer and/or die when they are sick or injured? Do you think the hospitals and insurance companies just happily absorb those losses when those people do not pay.
Are you going to advocate that only those with coverage get treated? Will people need to present an ID card before being put in the ambulance or allowed to enter a hospital?
The problem with the “A person should have the free will to do whatever they want to do about healthcare or not want do to” argument is that we have to pay for their coverage. Nothing like personal responsibility.

Hospitals directly absorbing the cost clearly works better than attempting to get everyone insured.

Indicative of this is the fact that having everyone insured, as you ignorantly claim will somehow make costs go down, does not cause the costs to go down in comparison to having the hospitals absorb the cost.

See CBO rated democrat plan versus republican: Cost difference: Republican 9% down in comparison to no plan. Democrat: 9% up in comparison to no plan.

Total difference: 18%.

Birth control: $25 or less
Women’s well visits: less than 1% of total healthcare costs.
Preventitive services: Old exrpression an ounce of prevention provides for a pound of cure.

Why are those three above relevent? The only added coverage to healthcare, are screenings, well visits, birth control, and a removal of cost for those items.

So then…Those are causing a 9% increase in premium in comparison to letting healthcare absorb catastrophic losses? You do realize that shows how inefficient the government is adding these programs correct?

Government forces well visits, birth control, and screenings, cost go up 18%.

Hospitals absorb the costs rather than everyone being forced to get a policy at an annual cost of $5,000 at the minimum, for healthy insureds as you put it, and the amount of uninsureds is roughly 30 million making 150 billion dollars of new revenue, doesn’t bring down premiums even though the total amount of non insured claims hospitals absorb each year is estimated at EIGHT billion annually?

This is math. Ron you as most democrats do mistake our anger as “we shouldn’t cover those people! It’s socialist!”. Yes. It is socialist. But what we don’t like is that it isn’t good for anyone. Socialism is bad for the middle class. That’s why we call it socialism, that’s why we say it’s bad. It has nothing to do with the middle class getting something for free. It has everything to do with what’s best for everyone.

January 10, 2013 at 2:38 pm

Okay then...says:

Like or Dislike:

0

2

Bob, hospitals do not want to continue to absorb the cost. Have you ever worked for a hospital? I have, and it’s not pretty.

January 10, 2013 at 2:53 pm

regular joesays:

Like or Dislike:

0

3

Interesting dissertation, Bob. Have you read the article about how people in the US are less healthy than the other “rich” countries? Not sure what the criteria is for “rich,” but that is the word used most often in the article “Why U.S. Lags Other Wealthy Nations in Health Measures.”

January 10, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

9

3

Bob,
First, I am not a Democrat, I am an Independent. I listen to both sides of a debate and go with the one whose argument makes the most sense to me.
The only point I was making was how the mandate is 3rd party protection because we are paying for those who do not have coverage or money, but still get treated. Are hospitals really absorbing those costs? Do you really believe that $9 for a $.30 Tylenol is a reasonable mark up?
I am not sure why you had to go down a different road from my original point, but you do seem to do that a lot when you debate.
In my opinion, the term Socialism is way over used and misunderstood by many. Here is the Webster definition:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Now, using that definition, explain how Obamacare, as it is currently constructed, is socialist. Can you do that without using a slippery slope theory?

I wish people had some understanding about what it would take for this country to become socialst. Hint: It takes a lot more than one President.

January 10, 2013 at 3:37 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

6

1

Ron,

I said that when republicans call it socialist, they call it by that name due to it’s negative effect on the industry.

I was talking about the guy you’re talking with, and you are literally clueless as to his problem with the healthcare revisions.

I actually didn’t go off topic.

“unless you are happy paying for those without coverage. Do you think that those without covergae just sit back, suffer and/or die when they are sick or injured?”

This is the typical liberal comment when it comes to how to reduce costs, and you implied that his problem was whether or not people get coverage. Or you were implying that shouldn’t be his problem and that it isn’t what he wants, and therefore he has to agree with you about the costs of healthcare.

Sargeant as his core is angry that we are tacking an crap route to this.

I don’t care about his other points at all. Your response was in direct reply to whether or not people get coverage (whether sarcastic or not). That was the section I replied to, as well as the passing on of costs at hospitals.

On the drug cost at hospitals: Clearly, that drug cost then must be considerably under that of the government’s intervention through Obama care, because if we do math, he’s mucking up healthcare so much that 150 billion of new revenue is what it takes to cover $8 billion of costs that get passed on from people who are not insured.

January 10, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

5

1

Ron,

And if you didn’t catch it, because you like to argue on a very poor type of methodology:

I side stepped whether or not it was socialist.

The slippery slope comment is ignorant.

Regulating a system to the point where $150 billion in revenues cannot cover $8 billion in costs is government intervention on a scale that mucks up the whole system.

I don’t care if the word is socialism or not.

We aren’t going to have the old “if it’s not socialism, it can’t possibly be bad” argument.

I know you’re used to arguing with republicans about socialism, what it is, and what not in order to say hey, if this health plan isn’t socialist it ain’t bad, but that in itself is an idiotic argument.

My argument to begin with is that you are looking at the whole argument wrong.

From the hospital stand point of costs passed on, you’re saying “have you worked in hospitals! I HAVE! IT COSTS MONIES!”

And you sound like a fool saying that because you didn’t quote the costs. I did. You didn’t look up the amount who are uninsured, and then apply the normal premium to those people. You didn’t come up with the $150 billion number.

That number was relevant to passed on costs.

Relevant facts to the argument on healthcare.

Why argue over small items like an idiotic partisan politician?

I’d actually argue that you are independant, and your argument style and what you argue over shows it.

Focus on the pertinent facts of health care. And if you’re going to focus on passed on costs, focus on the effect of Obama’s plan on passed on costs and how it covers it.

January 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

6

Bob,
You did not side step whether or not it was socialist, you said “Yes. It is socialist”

How can you make the statement “when republicans call it socialist, they call it by that name due to it’s negative effect on the industry” then say “I know you’re used to arguing with republicans about socialism, what it is, and what not in order to say hey, if this health plan isn’t socialist it ain’t bad, but that in itself is an idiotic argument.” So Republicans can define the term socialism wrongly any time something has a negative effect then criticize me for using the term properly?
I have never advocated for this law in its entirety. There are parts that I do not agree with. However, the mandate was a Republican idea advocated by The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich back in the early 90s when there was a push for healthcare reform. Interesting that they are running from it now.

“unless you are happy paying for those without coverage. Do you think that those without covergae just sit back, suffer and/or die when they are sick or injured?” is not a liberal argument, but a fact. People without coverage are getting treated and we are paying for it. If you think otherwise, you are the fool. I find it amazing that the party of personal responsibilioty is against holding people accountable for paying for their own healthcare. Now that is more like a liberal argument (from an Independent)
One other bothers me about Republicans, healthcare has been an issue for decades, but they did nothing when they had control of the White House and Congress for 6 years. Where were all of their great ideas then?

February 1, 2013 at 6:08 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Ron,

The yes it is socialist was Sarcasm ron.

I won’t bother directing the rest of your comments.

If you support Obama care you’re just a fool. All my arguments on here have been leagues ahead of your own.

February 1, 2013 at 6:11 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Though as a side side comment:

It is in actuality socialist. So is the having the hospital pay for healthcare costs.

You can’t state that the government is intervening in how the money is collected, how it’s dispersed, and that it is not socialist in nature.

Yes, the government does not own the hospital directly to make decisions. It’s simply telling them what to do right?

*rolls eyes*

Ron, either something is free market or it’s not. If the government controls it, it’s socialist in our book.

And as usual replying to a concept rather than a factual circumstance with substance…

Planet, your personal responsibility comment is only a defensive thought you have in your head due to arguing with republicans.

You’ve only thought it up because republicans made you think about it when they called the plan socialist. Otherwise you wouldn’t care.

Clearly this is the case, as you have not done the math. People who are acting out of facts, and not emotions, look up HOW MUCH those “irresponsible” people cost. And the answer is about $8 billion per year. How much would 30 million people bring in for health care costs at $5,000 annually? $150 billion.

And The CBO says that the democrat plan increases costs 9% in comparison to nothing, 18% in comparison to republican.

Do some freaking math Planet.

Your “personal responsibility” works great as a concept, but doesn’t help anyone. At all. Forcing them insured doesn’t bring down costs. CBO says it. Learn to accept it.

The ding ding ding ding you need to realize is that this plan is inefficient. And you need to stop being an emotional conceptual wreck. Pull out a calculator with solely seeking the numbers. Not to verify the emotional train wreck you have im your head.

Agent, I think that the support for the healthcare exchanges is not good if you only have 17 states “approved”. Also, Jane is correct, just because you are approved does not necessarily mean they will proceed with one. For example, I read where California might not proceed with an exchange or fund a state healthcare exchange because of the cost and the fact that they are broke. This state has the largest number of uninsured residents (I suppose this includes illegals).
I also find it interesting tha states like Illinois, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey (all states that voted for the community organizer are not proceeding with exchanges.

This is a disaster and will be far more costly than estimated. Bad legislation not thought out and implemented by the worst administrators in the country- The US government.

Parts of Obamacare are good – such as allowing children to stay on parent’s policy until 26. That gives time for children who graduate from college to find a job and get health insurance. I also think healthcare exchanges may be good – because it is hard finding private health insurance when you have to go do individual health insurance companies and wade through the different plans. But the cost is the problem. Many of the health insurance companies are only offering high deductibles. Obamacare is supposed to provide “affordable” health insurance. Why do health insurance premiums keep going up? Because of all the ‘free’ coverages that are being included. Someone has to pay for those ‘free’ items. Also – why free contraceptives – but mental health is only 50% after the deductible is paid. Also if Obamacare in 2014 will no longer allow the insurance company to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for pre-existing conditions or serious medical issues, who is going to pay? Us. That’s why healthcare premiums keep going up.

a big problem with healthcare cost now is the funding of Obamacare now eve though there is n benefit now. Since the affordable Healthcare act was signed, health insurers, companies and anyone else involved have been trying to fund now for losses later. Towers Watson estimates that healthcare benefits for 2013 at $11,507.00 for the year, a 5% increase over last year and I believe about a 20-25% over the last 3 years
Also, The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that “spending on the major health care programs would grow from more than 5 percent of [gross domestic product] today to almost 10 percent in 2037 and would continue to increase thereafter.”
According to Geoff Colvin Senior editor at Fortune Mag- ‘Unless changes are made, healthcare will eat up more of the federal budget than all of the government’s discretionary spending does now — including defense, law enforcement, federal courts and all regulatory agencies.” That will force many companies to change their benefit offering. Right now AonHewitt estimates that only 40% of employers will participate in healthcare exchanges in the next 3 to 5 years, leaving 60% to do something different like move to part time employees only, eliminate healthcare and pay the penalty because it is cheaper, move to PEOs etc. It is bad legislation, poorly convieved and is to expensive to fund, period

You don’t control when you get sick, but you should be able to control what you do with your money and whether or not you have to participate in a government healthcare program. The socialist context of this plan is horrible. It was ill concieved, pass in the middle of the night with no time to read it and will be far more expensive than any estimate that I have seen. Healthcare for those who now have it, will suck and put the US, if not on the road to bankruptcy already, on the road and maybe in the ditch.

Sargent, perhaps you saw the article about the double digit rate increases being allowed under the “Affordable Care Act”. Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross and others are getting rate increases of between 20 & 26% in places. I thought this act was supposed to reduce the cost. Hmm! What is affordable under this redistribution of wealth scheme?

Sargent, I am sure you probably heard the story that our President said the country didn’t have a spending problem. He has blamed the deficit on Healthcare spending. What does he do but pass Healthcare legislation guaranteed to increase the deficit by $1.6 Trillion. I don’t know about you, but that seems like a backward approach to getting spending under control. The deficit is slated to get to $20 Trillion by the end of this term. I wonder how much it will cost us just to pay the interest on this debt. Planet, you and Ins 102 need to take Econ 101 at the local university. I highly recommend reading Milton Friedman. He makes a whole lot more sense than Keynes.

You do not speak to the free rider problem. The same idea was put forth by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Why would I buy health insurance when I know that someone else will pay my bill? Gingrich and Santorum are right!

They only opposed the idea because a Democratic president introduced it.

You have to read John Robert’s opinion and get off tea party blogs Sargent Major. This is settled law, and you do not know what you are talking about.

Sargent,
Individuals are buying from private insurance companies under the individual mandate, and they are not buying from government organizations.
The public option (that would have provided this) is not in the Affordable Care Act.
You should read more before you post things that are not true. What is your opinion on the Chief Justice’s thoughts in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius?
Have fun at the Tea Party meeting Sargent!

Insurance102, are those turf grass Tea Party meetings still going on? How about FreedomWorks paying Beck a million bucks to say nice things about them? All you Tea Partiers out there, did you get the bang for your in-no-way-shape-or-form grass roots buck?

Planet, How did you like receiving a lighter check from your employer? How about all those other taxes that are going to hit you in the butt? Your President famously promised not one red cent of tax increases for the Middle Class and that is all he has done is add taxes that will affect everyone. 77% of all Americans are getting a higher tax bill. I am sure that will stimulate the economy, right Planet? When people have less disposable income, they will be cutting back on goods and services and this is nothing short of confiscation of our income with no talk of cutting the spending spree.

Agent,
You are misguided. Taxes that are increased are only on payroll taxes used for social security. The increase in revenue will augment the trust fund, and I do not paying more for Social Security if I feel more certainty that I will be able to collect it when I retire. I feel most individuals who are earning less than $400,000 would agree with me. The social security benefits will indirectly benefit the economy as recipients will spend this money on necessary items like rent, food, entertainment, etc. Did you ever think about this agent?
The market likes certainty, and that is why you have seen the market go up steadily after a fiscal cliff deal and an Obama re-election. The market would have most likely fallen as the market would not know what a Romney administration would hold in terms of tax policy, enforcement of the Affordable Care Act, etc.
Agent, would you take the Clinton era tax rates (which Obama wants to implement) if it meant Americans enjoyed the economic prosoperity that happened under President Clinton? This is simple food for thought. In addition, do you know that Medicare (as a government run health care program) has overhead that is on average 30% cheaper than private insurers!
Have fun at the Tea party meeting with Sargent Major!

Who is misguided 102? You just mentioned Social Security taxes. You conveniently forgot the other 12 new taxes that are coming down the pike built into the massive Obamacare nightmare.

Your argument about Social Security benefits being spent by recipients on rent, food and other necessities is goofy. Benefits are already being spent on these items by retirees. Benefits have not been affected, just the taxes on working people. Working people will have less pay to spend on necessities because their check is lighter about $2,000 per year. Wake up and smell the coffee.

102, you obviously have reading comprehension issues in your Progressive Liberal mind. Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby? Once again, Social Security recipients are not missing their checks to pay their food, rent or other necessities. It is the working people that are getting reduced payroll checks that are missing their money to pay for rent, food and other necessities to the tune of $2,000+ per year. That is forcing them to cut back on their spending and will eventually hurt many businesses in this country. You need to stay off the Huffington Post and Moveon.org sites and wake up.

Agent,
I guess your father was really your brother.
As I said before if you polled people that are making less than $400,000, (that are not having their income taxes raised one penny!)they would take increased social security taxes to preserve the solvency of the system. This includes people who are earning less than $75,000 up to $400,000. Preservation of the social security system indirectly benefits the economy as people use this money to pay rent, food, etc.
It is time to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and relying on The Drudge Report for your information!
As we know who your father is, is your mother also your aunt?

102, you really need to stop drinking that liberal Koolaid. It has warped your thought process. Most working people in this country are missing money in their checks right now, not just the high earners. Since when have liberals worried about saving Social Security? After all, LBJ was the one who moved the Trust Fund into the General Fund to spend on his War on Poverty. We know how that all worked out for the poor and we have more poor in this country as a percent of population than we had in the 60’s when it started. Trillions of dollars missing from Social Security and on the verge of bankruptcy because liberals on both sides of the aisle stole it. You must be a brother of Planet since he has the same misguided views. The only way I see Social Security will be saved is to make it a separate Trust Fund again so the Federal Government has to keep their grubby paws off of it to fund all the worthless social programs that don’t work.

Let me see the states with the highest earning states (California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc) overwhelmingly voted for President Obama. They also contribute much more to the federal treasury (in terms of tax revenue) than states that voted for Mr. Romney. Am I correct?

As for the poor in this country (the 47% as Mr Romney calls them), they would still vote for Obama. Do you think they would take Romney or some teabagging conservative who would dramatically shift the tax burden to them? If you do not believe me, look at the CBO budget analysis of middle class taxpayers under a Romney administration!
As I have mentioned before, those making less than $400,000 would overwhelmingly support increased social security taxes if it increased the solvency of the program. I know I do, and I probably earn substantially more than you do!

The President made his argument for enhanced revenue and got the majority of Democrats and Independents (and a decent number of Republicans) who voted for his call for revenue. In addition, the Democrats increased their majority in the Senate (winning liberal bastions like Montana and North Dakota!) and increased their representation in the House. Are you really delusional like John Boehner and these teabag morons to believe that the President does not have a mandate to govern with his agenda?

If Romney won, we would be spending money faster than a sailor in a brothel! How do you finance continued defense spending and growth in other government programs without having the money to pay for it? That is why every major think tank that looked at his budget thought that it would not do one iota to reduce the national debt! Idiots like you would send the American economy on a one way ticket to Athens!

As for LBJ, I say thanks. I say thank you for giving the opportunity for seniors for not having to choose between options like food and health care. Thanks also for creating a program that is more efficient (studies say 30% more!) than private insurance companies! Why do you think doctors are so willing to take Medicare patients and sometimes balk at taking private insurance? In some cases, these private patients are not profitable!
That is why other countries like Canada, Taiwan and Australia have adopted the single payer system on a national basis. Guess what? Their life expectancy is higher, preventative care is emphasized at a much earlier age and their health care costs are substantially LESS than the United States!
I know that you have to go toss someone’s salad before your teaparty meeting, but do you call your father “Dad” or “Uncle”? This is just food for thought!

102, The states you mentioned that voted overwhelmingly for Obama are known for their liberal leanings and several are virtually bankrupt and have the most oppressive taxes in the country. Big spending liberalism has never worked anywhere it has been tried. Europe has imploded with their big spending Socialism. All one has to do is look at Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Ireland, Great Britain to see what a failure this concept is. I certainly don’t thank LBJ for robbing the Social Security Trust Fund or for Clinton/Gore for taxing Social Security benefits. Progressive Liberals never saw a tax they didn’t like. Big government by its very nature is terribly wasteful and inefficient. You and Planet should immigrate to Canada and maybe you will be happier there with your government insurance. Don’t expect to be approved for any operation you might need. You will be put on a long waiting list to get it.

Sarge,
I like our government. Besides, they would not like me because I don’t fall in line and I like to challenge others. I was just being a smart-ass to Agent regarding his comment. It is my favorite rebuttals to those that tell others to emigrate for big government.
I always find it funny to hear Republicans rail on big government when there is a Democrat in the White House, but not a Republican. Government, deficits and debt grew significantly under both the Reagan and Bush administrations. Where was the Tea Party then?

January 11, 2013 at 11:26 am

insurance102says:

Like or Dislike:

1

10

Agent,
The last time I checked the economy did pretty well under Clinton/Gore. Did you like tossing Sargent Major’s salad last night at the Tea Party meeting?

The last time I checked Clinton “inherited” the economy from George Bush and rode the wave. I guess if Obummer can claim he inherited a bad economy, Bush can claim he gave Clinto a good economy.
Bill was spending his time fending off Hillary with an ugly stick while he had affairs with Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Twilley etc, etc, etc. Not to mention stashing Monica (“I did not have sex with that women- Ms. Lewinski”) Lewinski under the desk in the Oval office.
He could not have had any impact as he was busy chasing women, lying to a grand jury and getting impeached.

Sargent, How about the economy that Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter? It took a lot of hard work and tax relief to straighten out that mess so we could create some jobs and get the economy rolling again. Up until recently, Carter was viewed as the worst President in the past century. That was a very long 4 years to bare. He is now breathing a sigh of relief. Clinton was lucky the economy he inherited was doing pretty well. By the end of his second term, we had a recession going on and big government was on the rise. He was also weak on the Terrorist issue. We had the first World Trade Center attack, Kobar Towers in Saudia Arabia, the USS Cole attack and the emabassy bombings in Africa. What did he do but bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan, send a few cruise missiles into an abandoned training camp and pass up the opportunity to capture or kill Bin Laden? I guess he was too busy playing with the women to pay attention.

INS 102 said- “Funny, Canada and Taiwan that have single payer health care systems have much less waste, lower costs, better preventive care and higher life expectancy than the United States!”

Well Ins 102 people from Canada come to Michigan for tests and treatment because the healthcare system in Canada sucks. I know I live in Michigan and Canadians come across the river all the time because they can’t get tests timely and can die before they actually get the test. Why, because the healthcare system in Canada has pushed payments down to a point that hospitals that at one time had 4 or 5 MRI or cat scan machines now have 1 and everyone has to wait 6 months or a year because the line is so deep. They come to the US because they can get the test in a day or two.
2.) I ran an international operation and several countries had socialized medicine, single payor systems. Most of the people living there thought it SUCKED for the same reasons. Only the deadbeat takers liked it because they did not have to pay for it. Who were they? Well in Germany for example, it was former East Germans who they inherited when the wall came down. Many of those lost jobs in the old east germany and were on government assistance and had been for years. They had no intention of going back to work and sold black market goods or was involved in other activities for cash. Plus they got their healthcare for free. Those who paid the tab had to wait in line and one person died because he could not get diagnosed for a long time and could not get the treatment he needed.

3.) The taxes in many of those countries are not cheaper.

4.) As far as life expectancy, it is not healthcare or preventive healthcare that is the only thing that determines life expectancy. How about getting the deadbeats off their as*s and have them do a little labor. How about having some parental responsibility and get them involved in sports or other activities and off their As*, away from video games etc. The problem with the US is the lazy, fat as* lifestyle some of them live.

But I don’t ecpect an idiot like you to understand that. Obviously you forgot to take Insurance 101.

Hey Sargent, 102 didn’t take Insurance 101 or Econ 101. He likes the Keynsian Spending Economics and trickle up poverty program which produces 47 million on Food Stamps and half the nation not paying a Federal Income tax, meanwhile the working people of the country are getting hosed by all the new taxes being imposed on them. The job creators in Small Business are suffering from the Socialist Agenda of this administration. He, Ron & Planet can all move to Canada as far as I am concerned.

Ins 102 said- Sargent Major should also take spelling lessons as you spell like a 3rd grader.

I will admit I did not take a keyboarding or typing class. It is not spelling it is typing and the fact that I do this in short periods of time and type quickly as I have clients to renew and call on.

That said I would rather have a typing challenge than just be stupid like you. How is that Occupy movement going? Oh yes, I forgot you were kicked out of the park for defecating in front of a police officer.

I do not know a lot about Obamacare and willingly admit that. The question I have relates to an article posted in 2010 stating both the Amish and Muslim factions in this Nation would be able to opt-out of Obamacare based on Religious beliefs. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, why should a Muslim (American Citizen) be allowed to opt-out of this when Christians are required to pay taxes on things such as abortion?

Not really jw. The unions have ruined the sport. How many strikes or lockouts have come down the pike in recent years? They want fans to be loyal to them and pull this stuff often. In fact, the unions have all but ruined the NBA and NFL as well. I have no sympathy for multi millionaire players. No one is holding a gun to their head forcing them to play a violent sport. I could care less to see a hockey game.

Sargent 102,
It is “payer” not “payor”. I am wrong. You spell more like a 2nd grader!
How is living in Michigan? The last time I checked the largest number of cars built in North America are in Ottawa, Canada! The largest reason is because the health care costs are exorbitantly high. Who is calling for a single payer system? The CFO of Ford whose company was not bailed out!
You are pretty funny with the Occupy movement, but I am not associated with it although I live in NY and earn much more money than you. It is liberal programs like student work and loans that allowed me to get a college education, get a high paying job and add value to society as I probably contribute more in taxes than you and agent combined!
As for liberal economics and LBJ, programs like college student work and student loans and other programs brought the rate of poverty from 23% to 12%. This is from Wikopedia and not me!
Yes, point to people from Canada who come. If their care is so bad, why is their life expectancy so much higher than the United States and their cost so much lower? Also, Canada avoided the housing bubble as it had prudent regulations around its housing and banking industries.
If you want to look at more data of the Canadian, Taiwanese and American health care system in regards to quality of care, life expectancy and cost read the white papers from Uwe Reinhardt who is a Health Care Policy professor at Princeton. Listen to what he says well because the last three Presidents (Clinton, Bush II and Obama) all sought out his advice.
I wish I could pay more taxes to help you and agent get past a 3rd grade reading level!
Take care, and I hope you don’t give too many tea bags to Agent!

102, Had you studied history in school, you would have learned that the original Boston Tea Party sparked the American Revolution against excessive taxation and hardships imposed by the King of England. We know how that turned out. The colonists decided to pledge their lives and fortunes to rid themselves of the overbearing English monarchy. After a huge struggle and many more hardships, we won our freedom from oppression. You are very lucky to have been born in this country. Since you love Canada so much, we invite you to leave and spew your Progressive Liberal nonsense up there.

Yes Sargent, GM has 11 assembly plants in China making GM cars and trucks. How is that for outsourcing jobs? At least Toyota, Honda, Mercedes have plants in the US in the south without unions. I have an American made Toyota and like it just fine.

Bad for domestics especially in Michigan. We really need jobs. You are right, Toyota builds cars in Geprgetown, Kentucky and does real well. I believe they build about 500K or so. Mercedes has a plant in Alabama, BMW is building cars in SO Carolina, Nissan in Tennessee and Honda just built a plant in Indiana. Chrysler also has a plant in Ill that has done pretty well. I believe it is in Normal, Illinois. I believe all of those states are right to work except Kentucky. But They have voted on a union two or three times and it has been voted down, I don’t think they want to risk having production shifted out of Kentucky.

Sargent Major,
You spew inaccuracies like Mitt Romney during a presidential debate.
Info from Reinhardt’s research shows that in Canada that waiting periods for NON-EMERGENCY surgeries are three-four weeks. In cases where there is urgency (oncology, thoracic work, etc) services are rendered in a week or less. That is not bad isn’t it?
It delivers a higher life expectancy and lower costs as well!
I hope you don’t tell all this to your tea party minions.

Insurance 101 said- “As for liberal economics and LBJ, programs like college student work and student loans and other programs brought the rate of poverty from 23% to 12%. This is from Wikopedia and not me!”

It is Wikipedia not Wikopedia- And you critize my spelling- 1st grader

it is payer and not payor. I am right on this. With an undergraduate degree from Wharton and more designations than you count, you can trust me on this. After all, I am a national accounts referral underwriter.

Here is a link Sargent Moron…I am sorry Major :) to the correct spelling.

Ha- you have a degree from Wharton like my rescue pup has an AKC pedigree. You might have spent time on the internet degree circuit, and now have your feet up in your cubicle looking out at the parking lot while you waste your employers time on IJ.

Insurance 101- If Wikipedia or “Wikopedia” in you case is you primary source of information no wonder you are an idiot and can’t spell.
Let me guess, You also reference the Huffington Post and Rolling Stone.

The last time I checked Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton University and the Wharton School were not associated with the Huffington Post or Rolling Stone. These are pretty credible sources. Although, I do read The Economist on a regular basis.

We’ll start you out on a 1st grade level and go from there. You’ll have some competition from agent! But you tea baggers love competition don’t you?

I recommend you read anything written by Milton Friedman who was a very prominent Economist of the past 25 years. He lays it all out on what Capitalism is, the advantages of it versus Socialism. In fact, you could google him and see some of his famous interviews. Perhaps you could learn something instead of reading the nonsense you do from Ivy league professors who are as liberal as they come.

Sargent Major, I have more insurance designations than you can count and have an undergraduate degree from Wharton. Yes, I do study a great deal. But thanks to people like you, the insurance industry is known as the “C” student career choice. Sad isn’t it Sargent?

I’d love to sit and chat, but I will have to go. Thanks to you and agent for all your idotic postings. They amuse me!

Take care Sargent Moron…Idiot…Major!!

What is the tax discount for electronic prescriptions in the ACA Sargent?

Hey Sargent, Isn’t it great being lectured by a Narcissist Egomaniac like 102 who thinks he is so smart? He couldn’t even spell “idiotic” right in his rant. I also bet he couldn’t sell an insurance policy to anyone either whether it be personal, business or life. He sounds more like an underwriter with no common sense or personality to me. What company or broker would employ him other than maybe AIG or Marsh who are famous for employing people who don’t play by the rules?

I like New England against Houston on the frozen tundra. Brady will tear them up again. Denver over the Ravens at Mile High. San Francisco will prevail over the Packers and the best game may be Seattle against the Falcons. The Falcons should win, but I really like the Seahawks and that little quarterback that won’t quit and they have a running game and a good defense. It may not come out this way, but I am glad that 102’s Giants are on vacation until next year.

Well Sargent, It is very difficult handicapping football teams when playoffs come around. I was right on New England and SF, almost got the Seattle/Atlanta game when Seattle scored with 31 seconds left to lead, but couldn’t prevent a field goal at the end. Manning disappointed in the Denver game. It kind of looked like a choke to me.

January 11, 2013 at 4:22 pm

insurance102says:

Like or Dislike:

0

8

By the way, employers is spelled employer’s when referring to their time.

As for your facetious tone, I did receive a Bachelor Degree in Economics from Wharton with a concentration in Insurance and Risk Management (’98) and have more insurance designations than the combined IQ of both Sargent Major and Agent. Then again my six year old beagle has a higher IQ than both of you.

BTW, Sargent when you take about more than one (ex picks) the proper conjugation of the verb “to be” is ARE not IS. We can review this in 1st grade grammar.

I am a Giants fan so I do not really care who wins, but I would love to see some competitive games this weekend. I think the Super Bowl matchup will be Denver-San Francisco. Don’t quote me on that!

As for me, I do work as a referral national accounts underwriter for a major carrier. No, it is not AIG. If one has seen previous postings, you can see my feelings about AIG. Funny, agent agreed with me enthusiastically on my insights about the AIG bailout! I guess this is because he cannot think for himself! Why are you castigating me now?

I guess both of you do not know the underwriting and risk management differences between small businesses, middle market and national accounts? Can either explain to me how their risk management and financing needs differ for each of these three classes of businesses? Come on! You can both work together to solve this!
As most insurance needs for national accounts are done quarterly (1/1, 4/1, 7/1, etc), I do have more time available. Hence, you are reading my posts. My employer likes that I read professional publications, and I can hold a thought. The last time either of you held anything–was each other :) As we get closer to 4/1, I doubt I will be able to read individual postings.

Take care agent and Sargent Major, I have to catch the 4 train to get back home. Don’t overdose on Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh this weekend!

Actually 102, your sentence read – Thanks to you and agent for your idotic postings. That is not too bright for a Wharton graduate. I knew how to spell that in grammar school. I guess Sargent got under your skin and you had a rush of blood. In any case, you aren’t nearly as smart as you brag about being and have no business lecturing myself or Sargent on spelling or grammar. I’m glad I don’t have to catch the train home.

Hey 102, I also have a degree in Economics with straight A’s although it is not from a fancy Ivy League school. I got a heavy dose of John Maynard Keynes in my studies which convinced me his macro economic theories were hogwash. He has been discounted by most Economists except for the liberal East Coast professors and those on the Left Coast. Most Economists who have a shred of common sense follow the teachings of Milton Friedman who is my hero. I guess you were not allowed to study him at your famous school. He actually makes too much sense for your Progressive Liberal brain. I have gathered that from your Egomaniac postings.

Agent,
You never answered my question what are the risk management differences between small business, middle market and national accounts? I am even allowing you to work with Sargent Major. Hopefully, both of you can have a succinct and correct reply by Monday. I doubt it!

Yes, I do catch the train every day. The “4” train that I take is from Manhattan to Brooklyn. Thanks to mobile applications I can reply to you in the train. As I live in New York, there is no need to have a car.

Why are you castigating me when you loved my comments about AIG and its direction post-bailout? You agreed with me 100%. So, I guess you think that I am a pretty smart guy in some regard. I have to agree! The Wharton degree (’98), the insurance institute designations do not lie.

Here is a bonus question for you and Sargent that I posted and neither of you bothered to answer. Can you tell me the denotation of a recession?

Wow..Tom Brady over Houston. You really went out on a limb didn’t you agent?

I actually have some economists that Milton Friedman mentored, and that he advised for their PhD dissertation. I particularly admire Gary Becker.

So, since you know so much about Milton Friedman,

a) Please tell me three other Nobel Prize Economists that he advised on their PhD dissertation.
b) The reserach and findings that led Gary Becker to his Nobel Prize.

This should be easy for you, but you have yet to answer my questions on the risk management and financing needs between small business, middle market and national accounts? Don’t worry. You and Sargent can work on this weekend.

You didn’t say that you admire Milton Friedman which probably means you are probably a Keynes guy. I have never heard of Becker. Have you ever heard of Paul Gregory? He is the head of the Economics department at the University of Houston and a former classmate of mine in college. He is equally brilliant.

I have noticed that you like to sit up there in your ivory tower in NY looking down on the rest of us telling us how smart you are and you haven’t spent a minute sitting in front of a real client explaining insurance coverage, risk transfer and service issues. Sargent and I have spent a lot of time with real clients and they appreciate our advice and service. My advice to you is to stay in your little cubicle and play with your numbers. We will stay in the real world.

I have spent plenty of time in front of brokers and clients explaining the value of risk financing and risk management with underwriters from our field offices. It is part of my job duties. Many of our brokers and clients are middle market and national accounts. Can you explain the risk financing and risk management differences between both groups?

I hope you took some time to relax this weekend and enjoy some football with a pint of beer or a glass of Cabernet Sauvignon (or your favorite beverage!). I must admit that the Denver loss surprised me.

New England-San Francisco Super Bowl?

So, if Gregory is equally brilliant (as Gary Becker), has his work been considered for the Nobel Prize?

You are in a different arena than I am in. I write small to mid size accounts and plenty of them. We give them plenty of options to reduce risk or transfer risk. If you were an actual agent, you would be sitting right in front of a client with a proposal and giving them the options to consider and answering their questions.

On paper, SF/New England looks pretty solid, but the NFL stands for Not for Long. Upsets can happen and it is not a lock.

Gregory has been published and someday may be considered. Perhaps he has not been considered because he is not a Keynes fan. The Nobel has lost a lot of credibility in recent years by who they have given it to.

I actually talk to policyholders. As I deal with accounts with premiums of $300,000+, I will go out and meet policyholders and discuss our proposal and any questions they might have. When you spend $300,000+, I am sure you will want to ask a question or two.

Gregory does have an impressive resume, but I am sure his career growth is due more from his Harvard University PhD than his undergraduate background. By the way, his website should be updated. His link shows syllabus and course material from 2006. It is now 2013! But as a tenured professor, the Ivy Tower cares more about his research than his teaching. It is a fact of life, and it happens at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Houston.

You do have a point in that the Nobel Prize is sometimes given when it is not deserved. Paul Krugman is an accomplished economist, but he is not worthy of winning the Nobel Prize yet. But when you look at last year’s winner (Harvard Professor Alvin Roth), his research and contribution on game theory and transfer pricing is used in the business world-particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.

Have you and Sargent finished the homework assignment that I gave to you? Are we ready for current affairs today?

102, you lead the league in Ego and look down at Sargent and I from your ivory tower. We are just the good agents that are all across the country trying to make a living at insurance and doing the best we can for our clients. You are just a numbers cruncher for the big boys. I don’t know about Sargent, but I would much rather have a bunch of $25,000 to $50,000 accounts than one $300,000 account. It hurts a lot more if you lose a big one, but you can weather the storm if you lose a smaller one here or there. By the way, I don’t do any homework for anyone anymore. I am too busy selling and servicing my clients.